After 2 feet of snow falling here in NJ I'm pretty bored, so I decided to throw together a list of hitters still remaining through free agency that we could possibly acquire. I threw almost every name even worth considering on here so dont jump on me for any names on there. My main question is: Are any of these guys even worth acquiring, besides Damon(a long shot)? And if not should KW start sifting through the trade blocks to acquire a hitter, or are we better sticking with what we have?

I thought I read somewhere that the Sox have already said no on Delgado. They didn't like the way he looked health-wise in winter ball. IMO, it's Damon or just wait until May/June. Most of these guys will probably still be out there.

tm1119

02-06-2010, 10:37 PM

I thought I read somewhere that the Sox have already said no on Delgado. They didn't like the way he looked health-wise in winter ball. IMO, it's Damon or just wait until May/June. Most of these guys will probably still be out there.

Didnt read that about Delgado, but did see that Blalock was out because of the contract size he is seeking. If he doesnt fit into the budget then who does? Im not sure what he is asking for, but it cant be much.

And, are you implying that these guys will still be free agents after the season starts? Highly unlikely in my opinion. These are still serviceable players, even if they arent starters.

Corlose 15

02-06-2010, 10:43 PM

Spring Training starts in two weeks or so. I would wager that most of these guys will be available up until then. Branyan isn't anything special but he would help out the DH platoon with his power.

Ozzie and Kenny aren't so comitted to this that they're going to keep going with this situation if it isn't working. They could address it in ST or early in the season.

oeo

02-06-2010, 10:53 PM

Didnt read that about Delgado, but did see that Blalock was out because of the contract size he is seeking. If he doesnt fit into the budget then who does? Im not sure what he is asking for, but it cant be much.

And, are you implying that these guys will still be free agents after the season starts? Highly unlikely in my opinion. These are still serviceable players, even if they arent starters.

Most of these guys are not any good, including Blalock. I'd rather they not spend money on him. It's like some of you just want a warm body to say we have him. Blalock doesn't bring anything that we don't already have, and that's saying a lot.

DirtySox

02-06-2010, 10:55 PM

I think Damon/Gomes/Dye/Branyan will sign before or around spring training time.

tm1119

02-06-2010, 11:41 PM

Most of these guys are not any good, including Blalock. I'd rather they not spend money on him. It's like some of you just want a warm body to say we have him. Blalock doesn't bring anything that we don't already have, and that's saying a lot.

Blalock has put together some pretty good seasons as a pro. His problem has simply been staying healthy. Whether or not he can do this is a huge question mark, but could be worth it. In my opinion its not even a question that if healthy Blalock out performs Jones and Kotsay.

And as for the "warm body" thing? Why not. Obviously this player will be cheap. But, why not bring in Mike Jacobs for a ST trial? Competition will only help.

oeo

02-07-2010, 12:53 AM

Blalock has put together some pretty good seasons as a pro. His problem has simply been staying healthy. Whether or not he can do this is a huge question mark, but could be worth it. In my opinion its not even a question that if healthy Blalock out performs Jones and Kotsay.

And as for the "warm body" thing? Why not. Obviously this player will be cheap. But, why not bring in Mike Jacobs for a ST trial? Competition will only help.

Because Mike Jacobs is awful. What's the point? Might as well just go with Andruw Jones if you want a terrible bat.

Craig Grebeck

02-07-2010, 12:58 AM

Because Mike Jacobs is awful. What's the point? Might as well just go with Andruw Jones if you want a terrible bat.
...which is why Damon or Delgado are sensible choices, at this point.

VMSNS

02-07-2010, 01:39 AM

I'd offer Dye 1 million/1 year for a shot at the DH "rotation" with very limited starts in RF. If he says no, then he can go pound sand.

I'm sure dye has recieved much higher offers than that already, but not high enough for him to take. I'd probably offer dye or damon something they would actually consider, in the neighborhood of 5 million for one year.

JohnTucker0814

02-07-2010, 02:49 AM

We need to come to the fact that our roster is set. There aren't going to be any changes unless there is an injury in spring training.

We need to come to the fact that our roster is set. There aren't going to be any changes unless there is an injury in spring training.

I would have agreed, however they at least entertained the idea of bringing Thome back, which I guess means someone's job isn't guaranteed (hopefully Jones rather than Nix). And again, Ozzie not wanting Thome does not mean he doesn't want another bat. I think it meant that he wants a bit more flexibility from that roster spot.

If the price is right on Damon, it needs to happen. There's no excuse for it not to happen.

jabrch

02-07-2010, 04:40 PM

If the price is right on Damon, it needs to happen. There's no excuse for it not to happen.

Just out of curiousity - what is "right'?

I'm still guessing he gets 5-6 with incentives to make the kind of cash he and Boras are looking for. I don't see the Sox being that high of a bidder on this one. Not with payroll already at 105mm... I guess it may depend on how ticket sales go in the first few weeks?

DirtySox

02-07-2010, 04:55 PM

Just out of curiousity - what is "right'?

I'm still guessing he gets 5-6 with incentives to make the kind of cash he and Boras are looking for. I don't see the Sox being that high of a bidder on this one. Not with payroll already at 105mm... I guess it may depend on how ticket sales go in the first few weeks?

Recently it was reported that Boras is trying to get 2 years out of the Tigers at around 6 - 7 million per I believe. Detroit won't bite on 2 years. Atlanta is also monitoring the situation. Haven't seen the White Sox mentioned with Damon other than Levine's report.

asindc

02-07-2010, 09:59 PM

Recently it was reported that Boras is trying to get 2 years out of the Tigers at around 6 - 7 million per I believe. Detroit won't bite on 2 years. Atlanta is also monitoring the situation. Haven't seen the White Sox mentioned with Damon other than Levine's report.

Atlanta has already said no.

russ99

02-07-2010, 10:10 PM

I think Damon/Gomes/Dye/Branyan will sign before or around spring training time.

I don't.

KW isn't going to get into a low-end bidding war over Damon. Boras is going to try and squeeze as much out as possible, and I'm not convinced that the Yankees have closed the door.

Gomes and Branyan are risky signings, and not much better than what we have now, especially if you throw Jordan Danks and maybe Viciedo into the spring mix.

Dye is an outside shot, but I just don't see the Sox going after him or Jermaine coming back here to take a $1-2M deal to DH and have limited at-bats.

I see KW/OG going into spring with what they have, and only acquiring additional player(s) when it's proven that what we have won't work.

Craig Grebeck

02-07-2010, 10:12 PM

I don't.

KW isn't going to get into a low-end bidding war over Damon. Boras is going to try and squeeze as much out as possible, and I'm not convinced that the Yankees have closed the door.

Gomes and Branyan are risky signings, and not much better than what we have now, especially if you throw Jordan Danks and maybe Viciedo into the spring mix.

Dye is an outside shot, but I just don't see the Sox going after him or Jermaine coming back here to take a $1-2M deal to DH and have limited at-bats.

I see KW/OG going into spring with what they have, and only acquiring additional player(s) when it's proven that what we have won't work.
It's stuff like this that makes your side look bad.

Redus Redux

02-07-2010, 10:34 PM

Branyan had a great 09. The minor leaguers havent achieved that yet..cant project them.

DirtySox

02-07-2010, 10:40 PM

I don't.

My statement was unclear. I should have quoted Oeo, but I was responding to his assertion that none of those players will have signed with any club and will be available if our craptastic DH rotation fails. I think most of them will be scooped up by other teams relatively soon. I don't see Kenny picking anyone up either.

Yeah seriously. 2 guys that were extremely mediocre at AA last year should not even be considered for the MLB roster. Flowers could be considered an option as hes proven just about everything he needs to in the minors, but he is most likely better served getting full time at catcher and preparing for next season. He is a last resort option if nothing else is working during the season in my mind.
My only hope is that Ozzie is quick to pull the plug on this DH by committee if/when it fails. KW will have to pull of a trade quick at that point, but there are some pretty decent options that have 1 year contracts that teams will be looking to move. Dunn, Cantu, Lowell, Berkman, A. Gonzalez, and Burrell are some that jump out at me as likely trade candidates during the season .

oeo

02-08-2010, 01:26 AM

Just out of curiousity - what is "right'?

I'm still guessing he gets 5-6 with incentives to make the kind of cash he and Boras are looking for. I don't see the Sox being that high of a bidder on this one. Not with payroll already at 105mm... I guess it may depend on how ticket sales go in the first few weeks?

Backload the contract for next year. We'll have money coming off then, anyway.

My statement was unclear. I should have quoted Oeo, but I was responding to his assertion that none of those players will have signed with any club and will be available if our craptastic DH rotation fails. I think most of them will be scooped up by other teams relatively soon. I don't see Kenny picking anyone up either.

I said most, not all, would be available in May/June. I'm sure they will get a shot in Spring Training elsewhere, but they will be back out there.

jabrch

02-08-2010, 07:43 AM

Backload the contract for next year. We'll have money coming off then, anyway.

For arguement's sake, if he'd accept a backloaded deal, what you thinking? 2 yrs and Xmm? 2mm in 2010 and how much in 2011?

I can't see putting this guy on your books for 10mm in 2011.

If I were a GM, and if I were interested in this guy, I'd offer him a 1 yr deal with a low base and very big incentives to perform. I'd guarantee not to offer him arbitration - let him have a shot next year at FA again...

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 08:00 AM

For arguement's sake, if he'd accept a backloaded deal, what you thinking? 2 yrs and Xmm? 2mm in 2010 and how much in 2011?

I can't see putting this guy on your books for 10mm in 2011.

If I were a GM, and if I were interested in this guy, I'd offer him a 1 yr deal with a low base and very big incentives to perform. I'd guarantee not to offer him arbitration - let him have a shot next year at FA again...
Considering what we're paying Konerko this year, I'd have no problem with it.

SCCWS

02-08-2010, 09:20 AM

According to St Pete Times, Tampa Bay is interested in Damon, but Detroit is front-runner to sign him.

How? That someone on the current roster will have a great spring and earn the spot?

I have much more faith in that than the Sox picking up Damon. Keep believing that Kenny will spend $5-6 more when he has no idea if the players in camp can do the job....

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 01:43 PM

How? That someone on the current roster will have a great spring and earn the spot?

I have much more faith in that than the Sox picking up Damon. Keep believing that Kenny will spend $5-6 more when he has no idea if the players in camp can do the job....
I'm actually quite certain that Dayan Viciedo and Jordan Danks will not perform at an adequate level in MLB in 2010. Let me know the history of players with their skillsets/histories that have succeeded at an unprecedented level.

It makes your side look bad because you possess either a woeful knowledge about players in the organization or a willful disdain for objective analysis.

And performing well in the spring doesn't "earn" a player jack****.

FarmerAndy

02-08-2010, 04:33 PM

I think there will be much better options available via trade in-season.

Rather than tying up a roster spot by spending money on mediocrity right now, I'd rather the Sox ride out what they have early on and try to aquire an Adam Dunn/Adrian Gonzales caliber hitter during the season.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 04:42 PM

I think there will be much better options available via trade in-season.

Rather than tying up a roster spot by spending money on mediocrity right now, I'd rather the Sox ride out what they have early on and try to aquire an Adam Dunn/Adrian Gonzales caliber hitter during the season.
I'd rather not piss away at-bats on bench players, but that's just me.

And should Gonzalez become available, I see no reason why the Sox would outbid anyone for his services. Same for Adam.

Daver

02-08-2010, 04:45 PM

And performing well in the spring doesn't "earn" a player jack****.

It earned Boone Logan a roster spot.

DonnieDarko

02-08-2010, 05:23 PM

It earned Boone Logan a roster spot.

And Brian Anderson, too!

Oh yeah, I went there.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 05:58 PM

It earned Boone Logan a roster spot.
I omitted the phrase "should not."

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 06:12 PM

Considering what we're paying Konerko this year, I'd have no problem with it.
That's a brilliant idea. Then were in the same boat we are in right now, and not to mention that you have a mediocre player signed for 10 million.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 06:15 PM

i think there will be much better options available via trade in-season.

Rather than tying up a roster spot by spending money on mediocrity right now, i'd rather the sox ride out what they have early on and try to aquire an adam dunn/adrian gonzales caliber hitter during the season.

+1

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 06:24 PM

That's a brilliant idea. Then were in the same boat we are in right now, and not to mention that you have a mediocre player signed for 10 million.
If Damon's production is mediocre, I shudder at our outfield.

Daver

02-08-2010, 06:43 PM

And Brian Anderson, too!

Oh yeah, I went there.

Brian Anderson earned a roster spot by default, not by ST performance.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 07:18 PM

If Damon's production is mediocre, I shudder at our outfield.

2/3 of the outfield can produce more effectively than Damon. The other is a lead off hitter that is not expected to hit for a lot of power or drive in a lot of runs.

You're a dark cloud.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 07:23 PM

2/3 of the outfield can produce more effectively than Damon. The other is a lead off hitter that is not expected to hit for a lot of power or drive in a lot of runs.

You're a dark cloud.
Saying that a very good offensive player (Damon) is mediocre is stupid. Yes, Rios "can" produce "more effectively" than Damon (whatever the hell that means). I just wouldn't bet on it for 2010.

mzh

02-08-2010, 07:38 PM

2/3 of the outfield can produce more effectively than Damon. The other is a lead off hitter that is not expected to hit for a lot of power or drive in a lot of runs.
Yes, that's true, but we're not looking to replace one of our outfielders, we're not looking to replace anyone at any position at all, we're just looking for a hitter that can play the field, and therefore let TCQ or Paulie or even Pierre DH once in a while. With the talent pool that is still out there, if we really are going to go get another middle-of-the-order bat we can't afford to be particularly choosy.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 07:42 PM

Saying that a very good offensive player (Damon) is mediocre is stupid. Yes, Rios "can" produce "more effectively" than Damon (whatever the hell that means). I just wouldn't bet on it for 2010.

No, its not stupid. Damon is a good ballplayer, and I wouldn't be upset if he was signed by the Sox, but don't expect his offensive numbers to be anywhere near where they were last year. In 2009, Damon hit the most home runs he had hit in a season (also hit 24 in 06) at the age of 36. 17 of those 24 home runs were hit in Yankee Stadium that just so happens to have a very short porch in right that is perfectly tailored to Damon's swing. In 07 and 08 both his home runs and rbi were down from his career norm before moving to new Yankee Stadium.

Look, Damon is a good ball player and I expect him to hit around .275 with 12 homers and 60 rbi next season. But to say that he "makes you shudder" at Carlos and Alex is what is stupid. They both could easily put up far better number than Damon will next season. The whole point of the comment is that settling for those numbers is not the right decision when a far better option will become available via trade if/when Ozzie's plan doesn't work out. Settling for mediocrity at this point just isn't worth it and that is exactly what Damon is going to bring to the table in 2010.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 07:43 PM

Yes, that's true, but we're not looking to replace one of our outfielders, we're not looking to replace anyone at any position at all, we're just looking for a hitter that can play the field, and therefore let TCQ or Paulie or even Pierre DH once in a while. With the talent pool that is still out there, if we really are going to go get another middle-of-the-order bat we can't afford to be particularly choosy.

I understand that. That wasn't my point. I was just responding to Craig's comment on Rios/Quentin making him shudder.:rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 07:44 PM

I understand that. That wasn't my point. I was just responding to Craig's comment on Rios/Quentin making him shudder.:rolleyes:
Are Rios and Quentin the only two outfielders we have?

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 07:46 PM

Are Rios and Quentin the only two outfielders we have?

The other one is a lead off hitter. Since when does the average lead off hitter hit 20 home runs? There is about 5 in the league that do. I would love for the Sox to be made up of perennial all-stars too, but this isn't playstation.

mzh

02-08-2010, 07:47 PM

Are Rios and Quentin the only two outfielders we have?
I can understand why some people might have very little faith in Quentin and Rios, but there are teams out there with worse pitching with a far less stable situation in general than ours.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 07:50 PM

The other one is a lead off hitter. Since when does the average lead off hitter hit 20 home runs? There is about 5 in the league that do. I would love for the Sox to be made up of perennial all-stars too, but this isn't playstation.
Sigh. I don't consider lead-off a position.

I wish I was a lead-off hitter. Pierre rarely gets on base, but he's FAST! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 07:51 PM

I can understand why some people might have very little faith in Quentin and Rios, but there are teams out there with worse pitching with a far less stable situation in general than ours.
Duh. And because we have such good pitching I'd hate to see us piss our season away playing Kotsay and Jones.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 07:56 PM

Sigh. I don't consider lead-off a position.

I wish I was a lead-off hitter. Pierre rarely gets on base, but he's FAST! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

What do you want Paulie to lead off?

Pierre is a great lead-off hitter who will hit around .300 and steal 50 bags. I don't know what your deal is with Pierre. The guy isn't a future hall of famer but he will do just fine in a Sox jersey. Just because he doesn't hit for power and he doesn't have a high ops (your beloved stat), he's garbage, right?

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 08:07 PM

What do you want Paulie to lead off?

Pierre is a great lead-off hitter who will hit around .300 and steal 50 bags. I don't know what your deal is with Pierre. The guy isn't a future hall of famer but he will do just fine in a Sox jersey. Just because he doesn't hit for power and he doesn't have a high ops (your beloved stat), he's garbage, right?
No, not garbage. He's mediocre. Or something just below it. Below average, if you will.

And no, I don't want Paulie to lead-off. But if you want to argue with a strawman, have at it!

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 08:21 PM

No, not garbage. He's mediocre. Or something just below it. Below average, if you will.

And no, I don't want Paulie to lead-off. But if you want to argue with a strawman, have at it!

Hah, good one.

Someone needs to lead off and someone needs to fit the profile of a lead off hitter.

I love how you never answered to my main response. I'll take that as an agreement on your part, which is rather rare for you to admit defeat.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 08:22 PM

Hah, good one.

Someone needs to lead off and someone needs to fit the profile of a lead off hitter.

I love how you never answered to my main response. I'll take that as an agreement on your part, which is rather rare for you to admit defeat.
What was your main response? That he'll hit around .300 and swipe 50 bags? Again, as I said in another thread, hitting .300 with a .330 OBP and over 20 CS is a pretty mediocre showing with his power numbers and defense. So, no, I don't agree.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 08:26 PM

What was your main response? That he'll hit around .300 and swipe 50 bags? Again, as I said in another thread, hitting .300 with a .330 OBP and over 20 CS is a pretty mediocre showing with his power numbers and defense. So, no, I don't agree.

No, the rather lengthy one about Damon.

And his defense is just fine. A below average arm doesn't make a fielder with great range a bad defender.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 08:34 PM

Regarding Damon, I think he's a good offensive player who would most certainly start at designated hitter, post an OBP around .360 and be able to play the outfield at times. That's what we need. And calling him mediocre is, well, stupid.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 08:37 PM

Regarding Damon, I think he's a good offensive player who would most certainly start at designated hitter, post an OBP around .360 and be able to play the outfield at times. That's what we need. And calling him mediocre is, well, stupid.

You failed to look at anything I said, as expected. Good response.

Craig Grebeck

02-08-2010, 08:53 PM

You failed to look at anything I said, as expected. Good response.
If I cared about counting statistics, I would look at your post. I don't. They're irrelevant.

tm1119

02-08-2010, 09:06 PM

The other one is a lead off hitter. Since when does the average lead off hitter hit 20 home runs? There is about 5 in the league that do. I would love for the Sox to be made up of perennial all-stars too, but this isn't playstation.

I am also sick of this excuse for Pierre. This idea of a "lead off hitter" is completely made up. Not only is Pierre's production poor in terms of hitting, but he is also a poor base stealer. He gets caught stealing 20+ times a year. That is not productive at all, in fact its counter productive. The only way a player can get away with playing with Pierre's skill set and being productive is if he get gets on base at at least a .360+ clip. Pierre does not do this. Aside from last seasons short year he hasnt done it since his Florida Marlins days. Pierre was once a very good player, but in recent years he has been very mediocre. If he can give us the production Pods did last year we should be happy. Even though he will still be overpaid.

Daver

02-08-2010, 09:07 PM

No, the rather lengthy one about Damon.

And his defense is just fine. A below average arm doesn't make a fielder with great range a bad defender.

Since when does speed equal range?

I'm getting a headache already and ST is two weeks away.

KMcMahon817

02-08-2010, 09:51 PM

Since when does speed equal range?

I'm getting a headache already and ST is two weeks away.

I never said it does. Pierre has good range.

Pods is an example of a outfielder who is fast, but doesn't have great range. Pierre wouldn't fall into that category.

TheVulture

02-09-2010, 01:27 AM

Regarding Damon, I think he's a good offensive player who would most certainly start at designated hitter, post an OBP around .360 and be able to play the outfield at times. That's what we need. And calling him mediocre is, well, stupid.
So Johnny Damon with a .360 OBP is a good offensive player, but Juan Pierre with a .365 OBP is below average?

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 01:28 AM

So Johnny Damon with a .360 OBP is a good offensive player, but Juan Pierre with a .365 OBP is below average?
If Pierre posts a .365 OBP this season, I will eat my hat.

Edit: Also, let me know where their SLG percentages fall.

TheVulture

02-09-2010, 01:43 AM

If Pierre posts a .365 OBP this season, I will eat my hat.

Edit: Also, let me know where their SLG percentages fall.

Yeah, but in reality that actually exists Pierre did have a .365 OBP last season. So was Pierre below average last season?

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 08:06 AM

Yeah, but in reality that actually exists Pierre did have a .365 OBP last season. So was Pierre below average last season?
No. I don't think he was, if you take away his salary and all that. I just think the chances of his replicating that are slim.

voodoochile

02-09-2010, 10:39 AM

If Pierre posts a .365 OBP this season, I will eat my hat.

Edit: Also, let me know where their SLG percentages fall.

Most team don't expect great slg% from their leadoff hitters. I realize it's all the rage to compare all hitters as a single group, but in reality baseball doesn't work that way and there are actually specialty players who are successful without having great slg% numbers... Pierre would be one of them.

Not that I expect you to agree with me.

asindc

02-09-2010, 10:57 AM

If Pierre posts a .365 OBP this season, I will eat my hat.

Edit: Also, let me know where their SLG percentages fall.

Since I did not get a response to this in the other thread, I am re-posting here. I am still somewhat curious why you seem to discount speed as a mitigating factor. In other words, there are two players:

Player A:
.330 OBP

Player B:
.360 OBP

Assume each player has 500 PAs, the same K rate, same base running ability (apart from speed), and the same % of scoring opportunities once they reach base. The only significant difference between the two is that Player A is significantly faster than Player B. In fact, Player B often has trouble scoring from second on singles to the OF, while Player A rarely does not score in such cases. Don't you think Player A's speed makes up for his lower OBP?

Daver

02-09-2010, 11:31 AM

Since I did not get a response to this in the other thread, I am re-posting here. I am still somewhat curious why you seem to discount speed as a mitigating factor. In other words, there are two players:

Player A:
.330 OBP

Player B:
.360 OBP

Assume each player has 500 PAs, the same K rate, same base running ability (apart from speed), and the same % of scoring opportunities once they reach base. The only significant difference between the two is that Player A is significantly faster than Player B. In fact, Player B often has trouble scoring from second on singles to the OF, while Player A rarely does not score in such cases. Don't you think Player A's speed makes up for his lower OBP?

Speed does not equal good baserunning, so if you are basing it purely on scoring from second on a single then you are looking at a very small aspect of a large picture.

asindc

02-09-2010, 11:36 AM

Since I did not get a response to this in the other thread, I am re-posting here. I am still somewhat curious why you seem to discount speed as a mitigating factor. In other words, there are two players:

Player A:
.330 OBP

Player B:
.360 OBP

Assume each player has 500 PAs, the same K rate, same base running ability (apart from speed), and the same % of scoring opportunities once they reach base. The only significant difference between the two is that Player A is significantly faster than Player B. In fact, Player B often has trouble scoring from second on singles to the OF, while Player A rarely does not score in such cases. Don't you think Player A's speed makes up for his lower OBP?

Speed does not equal good baserunning, so if you are basing it purely on scoring from second on a single then you are looking at a very small aspect of a large picture.

I know.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 01:58 PM

Since I did not get a response to this in the other thread, I am re-posting here. I am still somewhat curious why you seem to discount speed as a mitigating factor. In other words, there are two players:

Player A:
.330 OBP

Player B:
.360 OBP

Assume each player has 500 PAs, the same K rate, same base running ability (apart from speed), and the same % of scoring opportunities once they reach base. The only significant difference between the two is that Player A is significantly faster than Player B. In fact, Player B often has trouble scoring from second on singles to the OF, while Player A rarely does not score in such cases. Don't you think Player A's speed makes up for his lower OBP?
No, I don't believe it does.

asindc

02-09-2010, 02:05 PM

No, I don't believe it does.

So you would rather have the 15 extra base appearances than the greater ability to score once on base? I agree with Harold Reynolds on this one. Teams that think nothing of waving slow runners home from 2nd on a potential bang-bang play all of sudden get risk-adverse when they have a 70% base stealer on 1st or 2nd. As I have stated before, I would put more faith in OBP if I saw statistics that break down how often certain players score in certain circumstances. It would put OBP in better context, IMO.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 02:11 PM

So you would rather have the 15 extra base appearances than the greater ability to score once on base? I agree with Harold Reynolds on this one. Teams that think nothing of waving slow runners home from 2nd on a potential bang-bang play all of sudden get risk-adverse when they have a 70% base stealer on 1st or 2nd. As I have stated before, I would put more faith in OBP if I saw statistics that break down how often certain players score in certain circumstances. It would put OBP in better context, IMO.
Agree to disagree.

asindc

02-09-2010, 03:14 PM

Agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I just look at performances like Rickey Henderson's 1986 season, in which he led the league in runs scored (130) despite the following:

-Making the 8th most outs (480).

-Leading the league in caught stealing (18). He had an 82% success rate that year.

-Being 5th in times on base (251).

-Being only 7th in PAs.

-Not finishing in the top 10 in OBP (.358), OPS (.827), or OPS+ (125).

-Being only 10th in total bases.

-7th in extra base hits.

In fairness, Rickey did have Mattingly (161 OPS+) hitting 3rd behind him. I will also note, however, that Wade Boggs led the league in OBP (.453) and times on base (312), and finished 2nd in OPS+ while having Jim Rice (136 OPS+) hitting 3rd or 4th (can't remember which) behind him. Boggs scored 107 runs, good for 5th best. Unlike Rickey, Boggs did not finish in the top 10 in outs made. The Yanks led the league in OPS+, while Boston was 4th.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 04:49 PM

Fair enough. I just look at performances like Rickey Henderson's 1986 season, in which he led the league in runs scored (130) despite the following:

-Making the 8th most outs (480).

-Leading the league in caught stealing (18). He had an 82% success rate that year.

-Being 5th in times on base (251).

-Being only 7th in PAs.

-Not finishing in the top 10 in OBP (.358), OPS (.827), or OPS+ (125).

-Being only 10th in total bases.

-7th in extra base hits.

In fairness, Rickey did have Mattingly (161 OPS+) hitting 3rd behind him. I will also note, however, that Wade Boggs led the league in OBP (.453) and times on base (312), and finished 2nd in OPS+ while having Jim Rice (136 OPS+) hitting 3rd or 4th (can't remember which) behind him. Boggs scored 107 runs, good for 5th best. Unlike Rickey, Boggs did not finish in the top 10 in outs made. The Yanks led the league in OPS+, while Boston was 4th.
I think there are extremes that do not prove the rule. This is one of them.

asindc

02-09-2010, 05:00 PM

I think there are extremes that do not prove the rule. This is one of them.

My point is that OPS+ or OBP without proper context results in incomplete analysis, IMO. Since Rickey's 1986 speed could not be quantified within existing statistics, you have to look beyond those stats to determine Rickey's value to a team. I'm sure Rickey would agree if Rickey was posting in this thread. Oh by the way, Rickey led the league in runs scored 5 times during his career, despite leading the league in OPS+ only once (his sublime 1990 season).

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 05:01 PM

My point is that OPS+ or OBP without proper context results in incomplete analysis, IMO. Since Rickey's 1986 speed could not be quantified within existing statistics, you have to look beyond those stats to determine Rickey's value to a team. I'm sure Rickey would agree if Rickey was posting in this thread. Oh by the way, Rickey led the league in runs scored 5 times during his career, despite leading the league in OPS+ only once.
You must realize you are talking about Rickey Henderson, right? Citing one of the ten best players of all time to prove a point about Juan Pierre is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

asindc

02-09-2010, 05:07 PM

You must realize you are talking about Rickey Henderson, right? Citing one of the ten best players of all time to prove a point about Juan Pierre is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

I'm citing Rickey's penchant for scoring runs despite getting caught stealing a lot, making a lot of outs, and rarely having the highest OBP. It is not about Pierre specifically, just fast players in general. Conventional statistical analysis does not adequately account for speed, which I think is a shortcoming. I think it leads too many analysts to ignore its impact altogether.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 05:15 PM

I'm citing Rickey's penchant for scoring runs despite getting caught stealing a lot, making a lot of outs, and rarely having the highest OBP. It is not about Pierre specifically, just fast players in general. Conventional statistical analysis does not adequately account for speed, which I think is a shortcoming. I think it leads too many analysts to ignore its impact altogether.
There are metrics that analyze baserunning on an advanced level.

Daver

02-09-2010, 05:17 PM

There are metrics that analyze baserunning on an advanced level.

They aren't worth a bag of crap, but they do exist.

asindc

02-09-2010, 05:21 PM

There are metrics that analyze baserunning on an advanced level.

Do any of those metrics quantify one player's ability to score in certain situations so that it can be compared to another player's ability in the same regard?

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 05:25 PM

Do any of those metrics quantify one player's ability to score in certain situations so that it can be compared to another player's ability in the same regard?
They analyze baserunning in sum. I think what you're alluding to is an obvious no, but just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it has a mystical power. It certainly won't make up .03 points of OBP.

asindc

02-09-2010, 05:37 PM

They analyze baserunning in sum. I think what you're alluding to is an obvious no, but just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it has a mystical power. It certainly won't make up .03 points of OBP.

Well, as you said earlier, agree to disagree. In the scenario I put forth earlier, .03 points of OBP equates to 2 extra base appearances. I prefer the speedier runner in that case. I also prefer the speedier runner if the difference in OBP is .30 points, which equates to 15 extra base appearances in my earlier scenario. Nothing mystical about that as far as I'm concerned.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 05:41 PM

Well, as you said earlier, agree to disagree. In the scenario I put forth earlier, .03 points of OBP equates to 2 extra base appearances. I prefer the speedier runner in that case. I also prefer the speedier runner if the difference in OBP is .30 points, which equates to 15 extra base appearances in my earlier scenario. Nothing mystical about that as far as I'm concerned.
.03 equates to 15. A perfect OBP is 1.000.

asindc

02-09-2010, 05:46 PM

.03 equates to 15. A perfect OBP is 1.000.

You are right, my mistake. I was putting the decimal point in the wrong place. I would still rather have the speedier player than the 15 extra base appearances, as I think he will score more often with everything else being equal.

mzh

02-09-2010, 06:47 PM

You are right, my mistake. I was putting the decimal point in the wrong place. I would still rather have the speedier player than the 15 extra base appearances, as I think he will score more often with everything else being equal.

Yes, and when you count the possibility of 40+ steals, IMHO that makes up for the extra 15 XBA

Frater Perdurabo

02-09-2010, 08:33 PM

but just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it has a mystical power.

On the other hand, something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be important or significant.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 08:51 PM

On the other hand, something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be important or significant.
Of course. But treating speed as some sort of offensive trump card isn't legitimate.

Daver

02-09-2010, 08:55 PM

Of course. But treating speed as some sort of offensive trump card isn't legitimate.

Depends on your perspective.

asindc

02-09-2010, 08:56 PM

Of course. But treating speed as some sort of offensive trump card isn't legitimate.

Well, I don't certainly look at it that way. It is no more important than any other potentially game-changing factor. My argument all along is that it has been devalued in recent years, coinciding with the steroid era and new focus on OBP and other recently-developed metrics.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 08:57 PM

Well, I don't certainly look at it that way. It is no more important than any other potentially game-changing factor. My argument all along is that it has been devalued in recent years, coinciding with the steroid era and new focus on OBP and other recently-developed metrics.
There's been a devaluing of speed as long as Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver have been around.

Frater Perdurabo

02-09-2010, 09:10 PM

Of course. But treating speed as some sort of offensive trump card isn't legitimate.

I don't treat it as a trump card. But it is a tool that, especially when combined with a variety of other tools, can make an offense productive.

asindc

02-09-2010, 09:13 PM

There's been a devaluing of speed as long as Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver have been around.

I disagree. Branch Rickey did not seem to mind the Jackie Robinson stealing home as often as he did. The Go Go Sox seemed to value speed. The 60s Dodgers seemed to value speed. The 70s and 80s Cardinals seemed to value speed. So despite Branch Rickey's early analysis of OBP and its importance, speed continued to be used aggressively with success for decades afterward.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 09:18 PM

I disagree. Branch Rickey did not seem to mind the Jackie Robinson stealing home as often as he did. The Go Go Sox seemed to value speed. The 60s Dodgers seemed to value speed. The 70s and 80s Cardinals seemed to value speed. So despite Branch Rickey's early analysis of OBP and its importance, speed continued to be used aggressively with success for decades afterward.
I guess using speed in game situations is different than treating it as a lesser tool. I regard it as a lesser tool. I wouldn't mind Jackie Robinson stealing home when he's doing everything else brilliantly. But he would have been an amazing player without all the SB.

Daver

02-09-2010, 09:28 PM

I disagree. Branch Rickey did not seem to mind the Jackie Robinson stealing home as often as he did. The Go Go Sox seemed to value speed. The 60s Dodgers seemed to value speed. The 70s and 80s Cardinals seemed to value speed. So despite Branch Rickey's early analysis of OBP and its importance, speed continued to be used aggressively with success for decades afterward.

This is why I made the comment about a small aspect of a large picture, players that can use speed to the teams advantage are worth the same as a player of somewhat higher overall production. Speed + good base running skills can result in a #2 hitter that sees more fastballs than breaking balls, or draws more walks because the pitcher is more concerned with the runner at first than the batter at the plate, they can live in the pitchers head even worse if they steal second on him more than once.

There is no way to quantify how it affects the pitcher, so propellerheads dismiss it as a lesser tool and move on.

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 11:09 PM

This is why I made the comment about a small aspect of a large picture, players that can use speed to the teams advantage are worth the same as a player of somewhat higher overall production. Speed + good base running skills can result in a #2 hitter that sees more fastballs than breaking balls, or draws more walks because the pitcher is more concerned with the runner at first than the batter at the plate, they can live in the pitchers head even worse if they steal second on him more than once.

There is no way to quantify how it affects the pitcher, so propellerheads dismiss it as a lesser tool and move on.
Was Pods speedy last year? Our no. 2 hitters saw the least amount of fastballs in baseball.

Where did I make a single reference to Scott Podsednik?
Hence my asking: was Pods speedy last year? Would you have considered him the sort of speedy threat that would make a no. 2 hitter see more fastballs?

Don't come at me like I just stole your car. It's an honest question: do you think Pods was that type of player last season? The data doesn't show it.

Daver

02-09-2010, 11:24 PM

Don't come at me like I just stole your car.

What the hell is this in reference to?

Your credibility was small to begin with, it continues to shrink.

PalehosePlanet

02-09-2010, 11:31 PM

Actually, it's odd, but both sides of this argument make solid sense. This is a good baseball discussion.

Keep it up boys I just lit a cigar!

Craig Grebeck

02-09-2010, 11:52 PM

What the hell is this in reference to?

Your credibility was small to begin with, it continues to shrink.
It's a reference to your disposition. Anything that disagrees with your sensibilities -- like my simple question, which I still am waiting on, by the way -- is an affront to your character. You're treating me like a neighborhood punk who snuck into your garage and drove off with your car. Just answer the question: do you think Pods should have had that kind of effect last season as our lead off hitter?

Daver

02-10-2010, 12:00 AM

It's a reference to your disposition. Anything that disagrees with your sensibilities -- like my simple question, which I still am waiting on, by the way -- is an affront to your character. You're treating me like a neighborhood punk who snuck into your garage and drove off with your car. Just answer the question: do you think Pods should have had that kind of effect last season as our lead off hitter?

I'm treating you like the fool you insist on being, why you continue to go out of your way to prove it is beyond me.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:01 AM

I'm treating you like the fool you insist on being, why you continue to go out of your way to prove it is beyond me.
Daver, nevermind the fact that you don't like me: was Podsednik a speedy and smart enough baserunner last season to be the type of disrupter, catalyst, etc. that would yield more fastballs for the no. 2 hitter?

Daver

02-10-2010, 12:05 AM

Daver, nevermind the fact that you don't like me: was Podsednik a speedy and smart enough baserunner last season to be the type of disrupter, catalyst, etc. that would yield more fastballs for the no. 2 hitter?

When did I ever say I don't like you?

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:06 AM

Was Podsednik a speedy and smart enough baserunner last season to be the type of disrupter, catalyst, etc. that would yield more fastballs for the no. 2 hitter?

Daver

02-10-2010, 12:09 AM

Was Podsednik a speedy and smart enough baserunner last season to be the type of disrupter, catalyst, etc. that would yield more fastballs for the no. 2 hitter?

Scott Podnesik has never been a good baserunner, what make you think he was?

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:13 AM

Scott Podnesik has never been a good baserunner, what make you think he was?
Does the proposal of a question indicate my belief in the hypothetical? No, I don't think he's a good baserunner. But that doesn't matter -- what do you think?

30 steals, 13 CS and our no. 2 hitters see the lowest percentage of fastballs? Why is that? Is his speed not disruptive? Aren't pitchers too afraid to throw the curve, so they're sticking with the heat?

Daver

02-10-2010, 12:19 AM

Does the proposal of a question indicate my belief in the hypothetical? No, I don't think he's a good baserunner. But that doesn't matter -- what do you think?

30 steals, 13 CS and our no. 2 hitters see the lowest percentage of fastballs? Why is that? Is his speed not disruptive? Aren't pitchers too afraid to throw the curve, so they're sticking with the heat?

I think you are reaching to make the numbers match the result.

I don't choose to play propellerhead games.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:20 AM

I think you are reaching to make the numbers match the result.

I don't choose to play propellerhead games.
I'm not reaching. They saw the lowest percentage of fastballs last season (they being our no. 2 hitters). If you think that it bears no relation to our lead off hitter, then what do you make of it? Is it just flippant altogether?

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 12:38 AM

I'm not reaching. They saw the lowest percentage of fastballs last season (they being our no. 2 hitters). If you think that it bears no relation to our lead off hitter, then what do you make of it? Is it just flippant altogether?

CG - quick question for you, if the White Sox went 162-0 during the regular season and 11-0 during the playoffs, would you complain about the losses in Spring Training? I have a feeling you would.

If not, then I have a feeling you'd find a flaw in the way we went 173-0.
"Didn't get on-base enough."
"Didn't hit well enough with runners on-base with 2 outs."
"Walked a few too many guys in close/late situations, at least according to my beliefs."

Going through life always finding something wrong in everything isn't a good way to do it. God didn't intend for that.

But hey, I guess you can play the "different strokes for different folks" card here.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:42 AM

CG - quick question for you, if the White Sox went 162-0 during the regular season and 11-0 during the playoffs, would you complain about the losses in Spring Training? I have a feeling you would.

If not, then I have a feeling you'd find a flaw in the way we went 173-0.
"Didn't get on-base enough."
"Didn't hit well enough with runners on-base with 2 outs."
"Walked a few too many guys in close/late situations, at least according to my beliefs."

Going through life always finding something wrong in everything isn't a good way to do it. God didn't intend for that.

But hey, I guess you can play the "different strokes for different folks" card here.
1. Leave the God stuff for another forum.
2. Did you really just type all of that to say something you could have said in, say, 10 words or less?
3. I've said numerous times that I love our rotation. I love Carlos Quentin -- I was ecstatic when we got him. I love Jared Mitchell, I love Tyler Flowers, I've turned a corner and grown to love Retherford. Hell, I've got a soft spot for every player on our roster. And I want them to do well. I just see inconsistencies and false arguments in Daver's bull****. I want him to back it up.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 12:46 AM

2. Did you really just type all of that to say something you could have said in, say, 10 words or less?

Game. Set. Match.

3. I've said numerous times that I love our rotation. I love Carlos Quentin -- I was ecstatic when we got him. I love Jared Mitchell, I love Tyler Flowers, I've turned a corner and grown to love Retherford. Hell, I've got a soft spot for every player on our roster. And I want them to do well. I just see inconsistencies and false arguments in Daver's bull****. I want him to back it up.

I'm not even talking about that. You are a downer. Period. I'm not going to go any further though because I don't want it to be a personal attack, because it's not. It just seems like your negative posts to positive posts ratio is somewhere around 1,000:1. You talk about the White Sox like they're the Pirates.

If he was still in town, you'd be giving Jay Mariotti a run for his negativity.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 12:50 AM

Game. Set. Match.

I have no idea what you're getting at. You won an argument I didn't even know we were having? How novel.

I'm not even talking about that. You are a downer. Period. I'm not going to go any further though because I don't want it to be a personal attack, because it's not. It just seems like your negative posts to positive posts ratio is somewhere around 1,000:1. You talk about the White Sox like they're the Pirates.
And yet, I've stated on numerous occasions, this is one of the best rotations in baseball -- potentially the best. I think we've got the makings of a good team -- I just want the offense to be upgraded enough that we've got the makings of a great team. If your world is populated with just daisies and sunshine, I could see where you'd be going with this.

If he was still in town, you'd be giving Jay Mariotti a run for his negativity.
And yet, again, I have no doubt this is one of the best rotations in the game.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 12:53 AM

I have no idea what you're getting at. You won an argument I didn't even know we were having? How novel.

And yet, I've stated on numerous occasions, this is one of the best rotations in baseball -- potentially the best. I think we've got the makings of a good team -- I just want the offense to be upgraded enough that we've got the makings of a great team. If your world is populated with just daisies and sunshine, I could see where you'd be going with this.

And yet, again, I have no doubt this is one of the best rotations in the game.

Be honest with me, at least as much as you can, how did you feel about the 2005 team before the season began? Please, do your best to be honest.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 01:16 AM

Be honest with me, at least as much as you can, how did you feel about the 2005 team before the season began? Please, do your best to be honest.
I think I was pretty ambivalent. Am I supposed to be impressed by those who forecasted a world series?

asindc

02-10-2010, 01:30 AM

I think I was pretty ambivalent. Am I supposed to be impressed by those who forecasted a world series?

Yes, you should be, since they saw things just as KW and Ozzie did when assembling and managing that team. Was the 2005 bullpen a fluke? Yes, just as the 2008 Phillies' bullpen was such. Doesn't mean it did not work according to plan. I personally will not dismiss the entire effort as a fluke just because I did not see it coming (which I did not, for the record).

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 01:33 AM

Yes, you should be, since they saw things just as KW and Ozzie did when assembling and managing that team. Was the 2005 bullpen a fluke? Yes, just as the 2008 Phillies' bullpen was such. Doesn't mean it did not work according to plan. I personally will not dismiss the entire effort as a fluke just because I did not see it coming (which I did not, for the record).
God, this is all beside the point. Still waiting on Daver.

My point is -- I'd wager that much of the same people who picked the White Sox in 2005 picked them every year thereafter. I'll pick them when I think they are overwhelmingly good. If they had an Adrian Gonzalez superstar caliber hitter, I'd say they were the favorites.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 01:52 AM

I think I was pretty ambivalent. Am I supposed to be impressed by those who forecasted a world series?

No. Just goes to show that you don't know half the **** even YOU think you know.

And by the way...

God, this is all beside the point. Still waiting on Daver.

1. Leave the God stuff for another forum.

Sam Spade

02-10-2010, 02:07 AM

And by the way...
Please. You know what he meant. Using the word "god" to add emphasis isn't the same as projecting your beliefs.

Nellie_Fox

02-10-2010, 02:36 AM

Please. You know what he meant. Using the word "god" to add emphasis isn't the same as projecting your beliefs.No, you're right. Using it for "emphasis" is HIGHLY offensive to many people.

sullythered

02-10-2010, 03:29 AM

Not to intrude on a dispute, but I don't think Grebeck comes here to be contrarian. There are those that do (cough munch cough) but I don't think he's one of them. I disagree with a LOT of what he says, but he's pretty consistent in his beliefs about how to construct the team. It's usually not an argument for the sake of argument. And it usually inspires interesting conversation. I've been accused of being a Pollyanna before, and to a certain extent I am, but if we were all as optimistic as I usually am, it would get pretty boring around here.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:12 AM

No. Just goes to show that you don't know half the **** even YOU think you know.

And by the way...
And it goes to show the image you project upon me. I even said last week that the Tigers or Indians or White Sox or Twins could all win the division. Baseball's weird. I don't think I know everything.

What I do know is that our number two hitters saw the lowest percentage of fastballs in the game last season. I want to know what Daver thinks of that.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 09:31 AM

And it goes to show the image you project upon me. I even said last week that the Tigers or Indians or White Sox or Twins could all win the division. Baseball's weird. I don't think I know everything.

What I do know is that our number two hitters saw the lowest percentage of fastballs in the game last season. I want to know what Daver thinks of that.

I'll wager a guess that some of that had to do with who was hitting second the second half. Beckham was absolutely killing the ball when he got his feet on the ground. He was a rookie. A standard response to rookies who are knocking the crap out of the ball is to feed them a steady diet of breaking stuff and see if they can handle it.

I'm not sure Pods had much to do with it. Though I agree that having a speedy guy on base can lead to more fastballs for the ensuing batters to give the team a better chance of throwing a base stealer out. However, it's not the only factor.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:52 AM

I'll wager a guess that some of that had to do with who was hitting second the second half. Beckham was absolutely killing the ball when he got his feet on the ground. He was a rookie. A standard response to rookies who are knocking the crap out of the ball is to feed them a steady diet of breaking stuff and see if they can handle it.

I'm not sure Pods had much to do with it. Though I agree that having a speedy guy on base can lead to more fastballs for the ensuing batters to give the team a better chance of throwing a base stealer out. However, it's not the only factor.
So, in this instance, the batter dictated the pitches thrown. Something I'd argue is the case most of the time.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 10:02 AM

So, in this instance, the batter dictated the pitches thrown. Something I'd argue is the case most of the time.

I don't think it's that simple. It's the majority of the reason, but Daver is right, a speedy runner with base stealing skills can change the way teams pitch. I think you know that too...

I don't think it's that simple. It's the majority of the reason, but Daver is right, a speedy runner with base stealing skills can change the way teams pitch. I think you know that too...
Sure, they can, but the data contradicts this hypothesis.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 10:55 AM

Sure, they can, but the data contradicts this hypothesis.

Really? There's statistically relevant data for pitch selection when speedy runners with good base stealing skills are on base?

I'm not talking about this particular situation, but in baseball as a whole. How many sample sizes do they have? Who determines what constitutes a speedy guy with good base stealing skills? Is that based on success rate and a minimum number of average yearly attempts?

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 11:04 AM

Really? There's statistically relevant data for pitch selection when speedy runners with good base stealing skills are on base?

I'm not talking about this particular situation, but in baseball as a whole. How many sample sizes do they have? Who determines what constitutes a speedy guy with good base stealing skills? Is that based on success rate and a minimum number of average yearly attempts?
The data in this instance.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 11:14 AM

The data in this instance.

That's not statistically relevant data. You can't pick a single data point even one with a whole season's worth of instances and assume it says something about the game in general. You're a stats guy. I'm SURE you know that much.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 11:18 AM

That's not statistically relevant data. You can't pick a single data point even one with a whole season's worth of instances and assume it says something about the game in general. You're a stats guy. I'm SURE you know that much.
Well I want to know, why, in this instance, Podsednik's presence on the basepaths led to our no. 2 hitters seeing the least amount of fastballs in baseball? I understand that it's statistically insignificant, but I think it's representative of something: this precept of baseball might be false, or the effect of a speedy baserunner isn't as strong as some think.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 11:42 AM

Well I want to know, why, in this instance, Podsednik's presence on the basepaths led to our no. 2 hitters seeing the least amount of fastballs in baseball? I understand that it's statistically insignificant, but I think it's representative of something: this precept of baseball might be false, or the effect of a speedy baserunner isn't as strong as some think.

Well again, it's not just speed, and again, it's not the ONLY determining factor, but if you want to try to prove it empirically, go for it...

thedudeabides

02-10-2010, 01:18 PM

Sure, they can, but the data contradicts this hypothesis.

I think you both make some good points. A baserunner can absolutely get in the head of a pitcher and effect how how he pitches, but that runner is probably not the bigest factor. Not anymore anyways.

Some of the explanation for the Sox #2 hitters seeing such little fastballs has to do with the #2 hitter themselves.

Alexei took the most at bats in the two hole. He had just under 300 at bats in the two hole, and he saw the 6th least amount of fastballs in all of baseball. The book on Alexei was clearly to throw him offspeed pitches. The pitchers stuck to the scouting reports more than who was on first base. As I think Craig Grebeck was trying to point out. Beckham took the second most at bats in that position, and as someone pointed out, after the first time through the league, the book was to test him on breaking pitches. It didn't work so much as he hit them nearly as well as fastballs, after an adjustment period.

Now, Podsednik wasn't the regular leadoff hitter again until early to mid-May. At the time Fields was in the two hole(scary) and after the league learned he couldn't hit anything faster than 90 mph, he hit a wall(odd the book early was to throw him breaking balls, and he was having some success).

In 2005 Podsednik clearly bothered pitchers, but he had a good hitter in the two hole in Iguchi. Pods did benefit last year from all the breaking balls as he was stealing a lot of bases, and would have done it at a good rate, if he wasn't such a meathead on the basebaths and got picked off so much(even third base).

Where I have to agree with CG, at least with what I think he is saying, is that baseballs overall approach to basestealers is changing a bit. Pitchers are going to stick more to the scouting reports and pitch accordingly. Case in point, Longoria saw a low % of fastballs last year even when he hit behind Crawford. It also contributed to Crawford being able to steal at an 80% success rate.

Pitchers as a whole, generally don't give in to hitters anymore regardless of the situation. They are just not afraid to throw any pitch, in any count, and any situation.

A good basestealer can use that to his advantage.

asindc

02-10-2010, 01:45 PM

I think you both make some good points. A baserunner can absolutely get in the head of a pitcher and effect how how he pitches, but that runner is probably not the bigest factor. Not anymore anyways.

Some of the explanation for the Sox #2 hitters seeing such little fastballs has to do with the #2 hitter themselves.

Alexei took the most at bats in the two hole. He had just under 300 at bats in the two hole, and he saw the 6th least amount of fastballs in all of baseball. The book on Alexei was clearly to throw him offspeed pitches. The pitchers stuck to the scouting reports more than who was on first base. As I think Craig Grebeck was trying to point out. Beckham took the second most at bats in that position, and as someone pointed out, after the first time through the league, the book was to test him on breaking pitches. It didn't work so much as he hit them nearly as well as fastballs, after an adjustment period.

Now, Podsednik wasn't the regular leadoff hitter again until early to mid-May. At the time Fields was in the two hole(scary) and after the league learned he couldn't hit anything faster than 90 mph, he hit a wall(odd the book early was to throw him breaking balls, and he was having some success).

In 2005 Podsednik clearly bothered pitchers, but he had a good hitter in the two hole in Iguchi. Pods did benefit last year from all the breaking balls as he was stealing a lot of bases, and would have done it at a good rate, if he wasn't such a meathead on the basebaths and got picked off so much(even third base).

Where I have to agree with CG, at least with what I think he is saying, is that baseballs overall approach to basestealers is changing a bit. Pitchers are going to stick more to the scouting reports and pitch accordingly. Case in point, Longoria saw a low % of fastballs last year even when he hit behind Crawford. It also contributed to Crawford being able to steal at an 80% success rate.

Pitchers as a whole, generally don't give in to hitters anymore regardless of the situation. They are just not afraid to throw any pitch, in any count, and any situation.

A good basestealer can use that to his advantage.

This is all I ask for, and it is my contention that most teams/managers inhibit the potential of their teams' running games moreso now than in the past.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 01:56 PM

Well again, it's not just speed, and again, it's not the ONLY determining factor, but if you want to try to prove it empirically, go for it...
Well then explain it to me, voodoo. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm questioning what some deem unquestionable by presenting one set of data.

Where I have to agree with CG, at least with what I think he is saying, is that baseballs overall approach to basestealers is changing a bit. Pitchers are going to stick more to the scouting reports and pitch accordingly. Case in point, Longoria saw a low % of fastballs last year even when he hit behind Crawford. It also contributed to Crawford being able to steal at an 80% success rate.
I really think dude and I are on the same page here. While basestealers may affect a pitcher's strategy in going to the plate, I think pitchers will pay the batter more regard than the runner. So, when Alexei is talked about as a no. 2 hitter, it's often mentioned that he'll see more fastballs. But it appears to not be the case. He still saw a steady diet of breaking stuff batting with speedsters on base.

voodoochile

02-10-2010, 02:13 PM

Well then explain it to me, voodoo. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm questioning what some deem unquestionable by presenting one set of data.

I really think dude and I are on the same page here. While basestealers may affect a pitcher's strategy in going to the plate, I think pitchers will pay the batter more regard than the runner. So, when Alexei is talked about as a no. 2 hitter, it's often mentioned that he'll see more fastballs. But it appears to not be the case. He still saw a steady diet of breaking stuff batting with speedsters on base.

I don't know what you want me to explain. I have said I agree that the batter affects the pitch selection, but I also believe the speed/ability of the base runner also does. I also believe game situation and other factors affect pitch selection including how many times the batter in question has already faced the pitcher that day and in the past.

I don't think there is one simple answer. Yes, I believe the predominant decision on what pitch to throw is based on the ability of the batter at any given moment, but I believe the other factors do play a roll and that one of those factors is the speed and ability of any base runners.

I can't explain it more simply than that. If you want to try to disprove it fine, but it's going to take a LOT more than the 2009 Sox stats to do so, IMO. If that's all you've got you might as well stop mentioning it, because it's not an effective argument.

jabrch

02-10-2010, 02:38 PM

I can't believe there is a single person in the world who actually understands the game of baseball who would say that who is on base is not amongst the many factors that determine pitch selection.

soxinem1

02-10-2010, 03:12 PM

And performing well in the spring doesn't "earn" a player jack****.

I beg to differ, Many a player have started, continued, or resurrected their careers with kick-ass ST's.

I remember Frank Thomas almost made Larry Himes change his mind about keeping him in the minors all year in 1990.

Also flash back to when Buehrle was thought to have badly hurt his ankle in 2005 ST, Guillen was ready to bring Brandon McCarthy North, and he was the first guy brought up when a starter was needed.

But there have been many who left the 0.90 ERA or .450 batting average in ST as well, and drifted away soon after the season started.

It earned Boone Logan a roster spot.

Twice.

I can't believe there is a single person in the world who actually understands the game of baseball who would say that who is on base is not amongst the many factors that determine pitch selection.

That is because too many fans value players as if they were on a Fantasy League team, where intangibles mean nothing and stats are the entire game.

thedudeabides

02-10-2010, 03:27 PM

I can't believe there is a single person in the world who actually understands the game of baseball who would say that who is on base is not amongst the many factors that determine pitch selection.

Not sure who you are referring to, but I haven't seen anybody say it isn't a factor, rather it was a discussion on how much of a factor.

If you bothered to read my post, I stated clearly how I think it affects a pitcher, but pitchers still tend to focus on the hitter first. I even used examples.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 04:22 PM

I can't believe there is a single person in the world who actually understands the game of baseball who would say that who is on base is not amongst the many factors that determine pitch selection.
I can't believe you would misrepresent the question I'm posing.

Again, I think it has an effect. But it's not as much as some make it out to be.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 05:28 PM

Please. You know what he meant. Using the word "god" to add emphasis isn't the same as projecting your beliefs.

Nellie already addressed this but I just saw it and wow... Way to dig your own grave.

Is it too much to ask for people to be more creative and find new ways/words to "add emphasis"? I hope not.

WhiteSoxFan84

02-10-2010, 05:33 PM

Not sure who you are referring to, but I haven't seen anybody say it isn't a factor, rather it was a discussion on how much of a factor.

If you bothered to read my post, I stated clearly how I think it affects a pitcher, but pitchers still tend to focus on the hitter first. I even used examples.

If you guys want to continue this conversation even further (which I won't because it's getting to new levels of , "Who gives a ****??"), you can ponder this question: does the catcher have anything to do with how much attention the pitcher pays to the baserunner?

Spoiler Alert: YES, it does matter. So it's quite easy to figure that pitchers with a good catcher will pay less attention to the runner and vice versa.

This whole topic has nothing to do with "Remaining FA's" and it is another BS stat CG has found/came up with and you are all falling into his trap to continue a meaningless conversation.

My two cents.

CPditka

02-10-2010, 05:43 PM

Lets just sign Johnny Damon so we can close this thread.

- Please KW

thedudeabides

02-10-2010, 05:50 PM

Lets just sign Johnny Damon so we can close this thread.

- Please KW

It sounds like the Braves have made an offer. 4 million. 2 now, 2 deferred.

I don't even think the Sox are a player in this one.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-10-2010, 07:24 PM

You think Damon would rather be on the Sox than the Braves?? He can stick it to the Yankees a few times a year, and we seem to have an easier road to the playoffs. Also, he can wear the Yankees uniform is a Chicago color kind of way, since they are pretty much the same w/ navy blue instead of black...

GoGoCrede

02-10-2010, 07:35 PM

Not sure where else to put this, and I know we aren't going to sign him, but this made me sad for JD. Hope he finds a place to play:

SI_JonHeyman (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman): jermaine dye is telling teams he's willing to play first base. he might be the most under-rated player in this market.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 07:48 PM

This whole topic has nothing to do with "Remaining FA's" and it is another BS stat CG has found/came up with and you are all falling into his trap to continue a meaningless conversation.
What do you want people to talk about around here? To me it's a stimulating discussion. I don't see how someone could spend so much time on a baseball message board and be turned off by a solid baseball conversation. Each sides have their points.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 07:50 PM

I can't explain it more simply than that. If you want to try to disprove it fine, but it's going to take a LOT more than the 2009 Sox stats to do so, IMO. If that's all you've got you might as well stop mentioning it, because it's not an effective argument.
My point is that it makes for an interesting complex. Here's one, voodoo: would you put Ramirez in the 2 hole behind an aggressive base-stealer like Pierre? Suppose pitchers still throw a good amount of sliders and curveballs to Ramirez, allowing Pierre the opportunity to steal 2nd base (as it's not a given he would make it, this is baseball after all). Would that be a good result? Or would you rather he see more fastballs? I think the first scenario is more likely than the second.

asindc

02-10-2010, 07:58 PM

You think Damon would rather be on the Sox than the Braves?? He can stick it to the Yankees a few times a year, and we seem to have an easier road to the playoffs. Also, he can wear the Yankees uniform is a Chicago color kind of way, since they are pretty much the same w/ navy blue instead of black...

Cross-posted for effect:

I just want to point this out: If Damon accepts Atlanta's offer, it cannot, repeat CANNOT, be assumed that the Sox did not try to match or better it. Sometimes, a player chooses another team for reasons other than money. With that said, let's carry on...

KMcMahon817

02-10-2010, 08:41 PM

What do you want people to talk about around here? To me it's a stimulating discussion. I don't see how someone could spend so much time on a baseball message board and be turned off by a solid baseball conversation. Each sides have their points.

It's really not that difficult to understand. People have little respect for your points because you piss on others points on a daily basis, with nothing to back it up, most of the time.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 08:52 PM

It's really not that difficult to understand. People have little respect for your points because you piss on others points on a daily basis, with nothing to back it up, most of the time.
And here I am, waiting for you to back this up. Round and round we go.

DirtySox

02-10-2010, 08:52 PM

It's really not that difficult to understand. People have little respect for your points because you piss on others points on a daily basis, with nothing to back it up, most of the time.

Disagree. He posts evidence to backup the majority of his claims and asks the same of people with opposing viewpoints. Much interesting discussion is derived from these exchanges. He doesn't go over so well with the anti-statistics crowd though.

KMcMahon817

02-10-2010, 08:57 PM

And here I am, waiting for you to back this up. Round and round we go.

Actually, whenever I add my two cents, which isn't often, I usually just read, I always back my points up.

But okay.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-10-2010, 09:07 PM

It's really not that difficult to understand. People have little respect for your points because you piss on others points on a daily basis, with nothing to back it up, most of the time.:bandance:

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:09 PM

Actually, whenever I add my two cents, which isn't often, I usually just read, I always back my points up.

But okay.
Well, criticizing me for not posting substantial evidence "most of the time" without putting forth any substantial evidence of your own to substantiate said claim seems a bit hypocritical, no?

Daver

02-10-2010, 09:17 PM

Well, criticizing me for not posting substantial evidence "most of the time" without putting forth any substantial evidence of your own to substantiate said claim seems a bit hypocritical, no?

No, just another member that doesn't give a rat's ass about your opinion.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:20 PM

No, just another member that doesn't give a rat's ass about your opinion.
Funny, considering he took the time to post about it. Much like you don't care about my opinion, but post and post and post and post and post about me and my eternally and inevitably invalid opinions. It's all so confounding.

Well, you post and post and post until I ask you a question you don't like, or don't seem to have an answer for (the auto: ____________ does _________ like my ass chews gum, baseball is not an offensive game, and __________ is propellerhead mental masturbation, etc. stuff must not apply). Rather than engage in meaningful discussion, you run off until another personal attack may be made. I'm willing to recognize ambivalence in this instance, that a baserunner's effect is varied and difficult to gauge, but evidence shows that, on a broad level -- admittedly a level that may not be suited for this type of situation -- some data may contradict the hypothesis.

Boondock Saint

02-10-2010, 09:45 PM

No, just another member that doesn't give a rat's ass about your opinion.

People might care more about his opinion if it seemed like he actually enjoyed baseball. Instead, it seems like the only pleasure he draws from it is when he's trashing the people that play it. After all, it's all he ever does.

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:49 PM

People might care more about his opinion if it seemed like he actually enjoyed baseball. Instead, it seems like the only pleasure he draws from it is when he's trashing the people that play it. After all, it's all he ever does.
[Something about selective memory.]

Boondock Saint

02-10-2010, 09:50 PM

[Something about selective memory.]

Where's your proof? Can you quantify that?

Craig Grebeck

02-10-2010, 09:52 PM

Where's your proof? Can you quantify that?
I guess praising the good work done by KW, our staff, our scouts, etc. must fall on deaf ears. I'm no organizational shill -- I'm willing to say right now that this DH business is a mistake. Should Kotsay and Jones wildly outperform expectations, I'll be first in line to say I was wrong. Being ambivalent for its own sake isn't much of an existence, in my mind.

Rdy2PlayBall

02-10-2010, 10:29 PM

I guess praising the good work done by KW, our staff, our scouts, etc. must fall on deaf ears. I'm no organizational shill -- I'm willing to say right now that this DH business is a mistake. Should Kotsay and Jones wildly outperform expectations, I'll be first in line to say I was wrong. Being ambivalent for its own sake isn't much of an existence, in my mind.The difference in other's expectations and yours can differ greatly. So no matter what the result is of this season, you will probably not be happy with what happens with Jones/Kotsay.

I hope we get Damon...

Sam Spade

02-11-2010, 03:19 AM

No, you're right. Using it for "emphasis" is HIGHLY offensive to many people.

I know I'm right. I have no opinion on its usage for emphasis. I hope you weren't implying that I cared about any of the following:

a belief in god
a lack of a belief in god
a presence, lack, or neither presence nor lack of neither belief nor non belief in god

I think I've covered all my bases.

Thatguyoverthere

02-11-2010, 11:28 AM

People might care more about his opinion if it seemed like he actually enjoyed baseball. Instead, it seems like the only pleasure he draws from it is when he's trashing the people that play it. After all, it's all he ever does.Honestly, I'm not understanding all the hate on Grebeck. All he's really ever said is that he thinks Pierre is mediocre and that he wants the Sox to get a middle-of-the-order power hitter instead of relying on Jones/Kotsay so that our awesome rotation doesn't go to waste. He also likes hitters who can get on base and hit for power/XBH. What in there is not reasonable? :scratch:

Nellie_Fox

02-11-2010, 11:39 AM

Honestly, I'm not understanding all the hate on Grebeck. All he's really ever said is that he thinks Pierre is mediocre and that he wants the Sox to get a middle-of-the-order power hitter instead of relying on Jones/Kotsay so that our awesome rotation doesn't go to waste. He also likes hitters who can get on base and hit for power/XBH. What in there is not reasonable? :scratch:Saying it over and over and over again, and not allowing anyone else to merely have an opinion without demanding charts, graphs, equations, formulas, and levels of statistical significance to support their opinion.

Craig Grebeck

02-11-2010, 01:38 PM

Saying it over and over and over again, and not allowing anyone else to merely have an opinion without demanding charts, graphs, equations, formulas, and levels of statistical significance to support their opinion.
You know, simple evidence that one could find in a 15 second google search, rather than platitudes repeated by KW on White Sox Weekly. Tough.

Nellie_Fox

02-11-2010, 02:27 PM

You know, simple evidence that one could find in a 15 second google search, rather than platitudes repeated by KW on White Sox Weekly. Tough.Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to "win" every debate. People don't have to defend their opinions to you. You state your side, they state theirs, why can't that be the end of it? Why do they have to "defend" their position to your satisfaction?

In most of these discussions, it has been projecting the future, so there can't be a right or wrong opinion until it actually plays out. It is no more "correct" if backed with pages of statistics than it is if based on a "gut feeling."

Craig Grebeck

02-11-2010, 02:39 PM

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to "win" every debate. People don't have to defend their opinions to you. You state your side, they state theirs, why can't that be the end of it? Why do they have to "defend" their position to your satisfaction?
Why can't I ask someone to rationalize their thoughts? Is that really so hard? I find discussions of that kind interesting. Sitting around going, "Hm, I suppose if you think Andruw Jones is a good baseball player we might as well just leave it there, partner," doesn't make for stimulating discussion.

It is no more "correct" if backed with pages of statistics than it is if based on a "gut feeling."It's defensible. I think it'll be seventy degrees tomorrow in Chicago. Just a gut feeling. You want to tell me that's wrong? YOU ARE OUT OF LINE!

Nellie_Fox

02-11-2010, 04:34 PM

It's defensible. I think it'll be seventy degrees tomorrow in Chicago. Just a gut feeling. You want to tell me that's wrong? YOU ARE OUT OF LINE!Okay, you think that predicting a player's performance (or a team's performance) for the upcoming season is equivalent to, and as scientific as, predicting tomorrow's weather. That explains a lot; I'll let that stand on its own.

doublem23

02-11-2010, 05:32 PM

Okay, you think that predicting a player's performance (or a team's performance) for the upcoming season is equivalent to, and as scientific as, predicting tomorrow's weather. That explains a lot; I'll let that stand on its own.

How many threads do we have of people complaining about meteorologists that don't know what they're talking about?

WhiteSoxFan84

02-12-2010, 12:34 AM

Why can't I ask someone to rationalize their thoughts? Is that really so hard? I find discussions of that kind interesting. Sitting around going, "Hm, I suppose if you think Andruw Jones is a good baseball player we might as well just leave it there, partner," doesn't make for stimulating discussion.

It's defensible. I think it'll be seventy degrees tomorrow in Chicago. Just a gut feeling. You want to tell me that's wrong? YOU ARE OUT OF LINE!

I said it once before about this guy (in this thread) and I'll say it again:
Game. Set. Match.

You dig your own grave dude. You make yourself so unliked that even when you do make a good point people would rather click out of threads than give you credit.

I'd rather read someone say...
"Although I respect your opinion of Paul Konerko being a solid 1st basemen, I think we should be looking for an upgrade."

Than read you say,
"Well, ahhh, according to my calculations that I put together over at the lab yesterday after the my pet hamster and I finished watching the Star Trek marathon, I've come to the conclusion that too many of our bench players sat on the left side of the bench rather than the right side. I have clear facts proving that the last 4 MLB World Series Champions have had most of their players spending more time on the right side than the left side. But what do I know, I just crunch numbers. Haha"

Lame. This is a FAN site the last time I checked. Not a ****ing research lab.

voodoochile

02-12-2010, 12:43 AM

I said it once before about this guy (in this thread) and I'll say it again:
Game. Set. Match.

You dig your own grave dude. You make yourself so unliked that even when you do make a good point people would rather click out of threads than give you credit.

I'd rather read someone say...
"Although I respect your opinion of Paul Konerko being a solid 1st basemen, I think we should be looking for an upgrade."

Than read you say,
"Well, ahhh, according to my calculations that I put together over at the lab yesterday after the my pet hamster and I finished watching the Star Trek marathon, I've come to the conclusion that too many of our bench players sat on the left side of the bench rather than the right side. I have clear facts proving that the last 4 MLB World Series Champions have had most of their players spending more time on the right side than the left side. But what do I know, I just crunch numbers. Haha"

Lame. This is a FAN site the last time I checked. Not a ****ing research lab.

The bolded part is where you crossed the line, but this thread isn't about FA's anymore, I'm closing it...